Anti-Morsi protesters chant and set off fireworks during a mass-demonstration in Cairo's Tahrir Square, June 2013. (Amr Abdallah/Reuters)

As her fellow citizens take to the streets once again -- two-and-a-half years after the January 25 Revolution and a year after President Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood assumed power -- the prominent Egyptian-American democracy activist Mona Eltahawy believes that her country is poised, finally, for real liberal political transformation.

"I think one of the best ways to summarize it is through one of the banners being held through the streets of Cairo as people marched on Heliopolis Palace," Eltahawy said at the Aspen Ideas Festival yesterday. "And that banner said, 'With Islam, Against the Muslim Brotherhood.' Of course, Eltahawy doesn't presume that fidelity to Islam would ever be the basis for political solidarity among a liberal Egyptian opposition. To the contrary -- particularly given Egypt's massive Coptic Christian population, and particularly given that the object of political solidarity among the Egyptian political opposition is, as she sees it, ultimately not just the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood but the establishment of a secular political culture and a genuine transition to democracy.

The reason Morsi became Egypt's president at all, Eltahawy said, "is because of the false choice we were given, which was: a religious fundamentalist president or a candidate from the military junta. So I have lots of friends who, with great difficulty, voted for Morsi because they didn't want the junta guy."

If Egyptians elected Morsi based on a "false choice" a year ago, why does Eltahawy believe that they want more than to throw the bum out today? Why does she believe that Egyptians want to decisively reject the Muslim Brotherhood's political Islamism altogether? "I actually think it's the best thing possible that the Muslim Brotherhood are now in government in Egypt," Eltahawy said, "because they've embarrassed themselves for the terrible job of governing that they've done in a way that none of us could have done; they've done us a huge favor."

The Muslim Brotherhood has, in other words, accelerated both its political implosion and the comprehensive discrediting of its political ideology -- at the cost to the Egyptian people of having had to endure a year of super-dreadful governance:

So what we're now doing is, we're telling them, "You can't use this Islam card anymore." When I was a journalist in Cairo in the 1990s, we would ask them, "What do you represent?" Because they would love to play the victim: "Mubarak imprisons us! Mubarak tortures us!" We would say, "But what's your platform?" They would say, "Islam is the solution!" And that is nonsense. Islam is not the solution. The solution is to get people jobs. The solution is to make sure that cars are not lining up outside gas stations for hours. The solution is to make sure that torture under the Muslim Brotherhood government is [understood to be] just as bad as torture under Mubarak and the junta.

If Eltahawy is right, what's happening on the streets of Cairo now will extend into a full-on second Egyptian revolution -- which she thinks is exactly what Egypt needs: "When Muslims go to vote, ... we don't want empty slogans, like 'Islam is the solution.' We want: 'I'm going to give your son or daughter a job. I'm going to make this street safe. I'm going to reform the [security forces], which broke my arms and sexually assaulted me and killed hundreds and thousands of Egyptians throughout decades of dictatorship,'" she said. "... as difficult as it is for me as an Egyptian to watch Egypt on the so-called 'brink,' this is a great moment for us to finally move beyond dictatorship and the military and Islamists."

For former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright, however, there is still no obvious trajectory from these demonstrations to the kind of effective institutional governance Eltahawy is talking about. "Tahrir Square is a leaderless movement," Albright said, responding to Eltahawy in Aspen yesterday. "And that is part of the problem. The leaders who are there, theoretically ElBaradei and Amr Moussa, are not doing the job, for whatever reason."

The Egyptian opposition isn't ready to transform Egyptian politics, Albright elaborated, because it's not yet presenting a serious political alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood; and (conspicuously, Albright's critique of the opposition parallels Eltahawy's of the Muslim brotherhood here) it's not yet prepared to govern:

It's very hard to argue with anything that Mona has said. But the truth is that people don't want to live in a completely unstable society. This is the problem that we have. And this happened in a number of revolutions: There are the revolutionary leaders, who want to move forward, and then there are ordinary people who do not know how to get bread, who can't send their children to school, who just plead for some kind of order and organization. And so the thing that we have to do is to pull these two concepts together -- of having people who are dynamic and are leaders in this, and at the same time trying to develop the institutions that allow for some kind of stable society. We cannot live with only people in the streets -- it does not work.

But then, Eltahawy isn't arguing that we can live with only people in the streets. She's arguing that there's not a sustainable social basis for the Muslim Brotherhood and the kind of political Islamism it represents to remain legitimate. The real contrast here isn't that Albright believes in political order and Eltahawy believes in social upheaval; it's that Albright believes the political transformation of Egyptian society will depend almost entirely on leadership from the top down, and Eltahawy believes Egypt's new social movements can generate and condition that leadership from the bottom up.

Neither, meanwhile, seems to know any better than we do how Islamists will respond to a loss of political power or how the military will respond to anything.

About the Author

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.